The Iphone is an orwellian police state where everything you do on it is carefully censored and controlled by Apple. Certainly i would never use one. I wish Google or someone would come out with a phone which is based on a completely open OS like Linux and where people can write their own programs and so on for it. People often fear government as a threat to their freedom, but right here we see with Apple, an obvious violation of peoples rights to use a device that they purchased in a way they wish, and a corporation deciding what people can and cant use it for. This leads in fact to stagnation, a lack of innovation. Many interesting developments and innovations come from innovation and improving and tinkering with an existing platform. A platform that allows a person to develop software provides excellent conditions for new innovations, like new games or mail apps to be developed.

If you want to know what a general purpose PC which can only reliably run software blessed by a central authority looks like, go install Debian, then try and install a program that isn't included in the repositories. It'll probably make jailbreaking an iPhone look like a stroll through a grassy meadow.

Oh, you mean like I how I've built and run supertux, wesnoth, frozen-bubble and conky out of svn? Or like how I installed Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo with wine? Or how I install the wine packages from winehq instead of from Debian?

Or how I've installed vethd from a source tarball? Or how I've installed several emacs mode by downloading some random.el of the web? Or do you perhaps means the tons of scripts in my ~/bin that just keep on working and I only change because I learn something new about she

Debian is a poor analogy because their release is all non-proprietary, but installing non-proprietary software is extremely easy. Try running "apt-cache search nvidia" on a fresh Debian install, without having updated the sources.list.

Even if it was at all difficult to install any proprietary software in Debian, the whole point is flawed. Debian doesn't want to ship with proprietary software IN their OS on install. There is no restrictions on actual use or development. You don't have to get into their offic

As much as the iPhone has a cool UI for some things it still lacks a lot of features that other phones have had for ages. For me the disadvantages are too many for me to choose an iPhone over a SE Walkman or one of the Nokia N-series phones.

9. Sync with other calendars using industry standard OMA DS / SyncML? Forget it unless you are willing to pay for a third party app which is buggy.

I have an iPhone (which I got essentially "free" from my Telco - which probably means that I spend way too much money on communications...) and while it is indeed DRM crippled to Hell and generally buggy, while fooling around with it I found out that it was much easier for me to deploy an ActiveSync emulation in PHP on Linux then one of the very, very few fully open SyncML Linux implementations, probably due to the insane and wholly unnecessary complexity of the SyncML protocol or crazy design choices of the implementors, such as using gargantuan Java frameworks to implement the server-side (my ActiveSync server is a 32MB RAM MIPS device btw). Which is a rather sad state of affairs.

I never tried to run a fake ActiveSync back-end before and so I was pleasantly surprised that the Z-Push implementation is very straightforwardly hackable to the point that within a day I got my Contacts and Calendar operating with a 100% PostgreSQL back end of my own design, tied directly into my time tracking and billing system. I use IMAP for email combined with SMS-based "push" for incoming email notifications, which works wonderfully with procmail and allows me to be notified only for emails I deem "important" enough, instead for all the crap that normally makes to people's inboxes.

So in the end I am somewhat pleased with the thing, and although it pains me to say so, unless something changes radically I think if I were to ditch the iPhone, my next phone will be an ActiveSync one, not SyncML.

Another side-effect of this is that I did not load any apps on the phone at all as with this kind of setup, combined with the above-average web browser quality on the iPhone, I am able to have everything wholly server-side, making the actual phone the least important element in the overall scheme of things.

Regarding MMS/SMS: It is far more expensive for me to use e-mail on my phone than to pay for unlimited texting. I pay $30 per month to get unlimited texts on all five lines of my plan - but paying for data, I'd pay $0.01 per KB on all five phones (separately). Data has the additional disadvantage of making me pay for each spam message I recieve - so if some spammer sends me an image, it costs me half a dollar instead of being free as it would be on the computer.

I see that you're really excited about iPhone, applications, etc.. Here are some facts though:

All these so called "level" apps use builtin LIS302DL accelerometer/motion sensor, which outputs values in range 0-38h for 0-1g accelerations. Do the math and you'll see that despite what apps says/shows, it cannot give you precision more that about 1.6 degrees tops (pdf spec [st.com])

Disclaimer: I am iPhone developer and I like developing for it - but people, please do some reality checks sometimes...

Have you ever needed to dial a phone without looking at the keypad? There's a reason why most keypads are buttons and why they generally have tactile patterns on them.

As it is presently using an iPhone if you're blind is going to be somewhere between challenging and impossible. Yeah, that's really usable.

Touch screens are better than they used to be, but do you really want to have to worry about them flaking out or outright refusing to register a press? I've had that happen pretty frequently in the past, an

"...i mean, how does a fancy screen transition improve usability in any way?"

You may think they're "just" eye-candy, but they contribute to the UI in a major way. Sliding screens back and forth, zooming from an icon to a screen and back, minimizing to an icon or trash can at the bottom of the screen, super-smooth list scrolling, "inertia", and more, all contribute to a sense of place. Yes, they're "sexy", but they also provide significant visual cues that help tell you what just happened, where the document

Secondarily, allowing users to install apps from any source they please would be the first major step in making application piracy that much more likely. And, effectively, the end of all of those cheap $1 and $2 applications. Prices would jump to the $10 and $20 mark seen on other platforms and stores (Handago), which is something that benefits neither honest users nor developers.

You have it backwards. If piracy really does happen (you said that, not me), the $1-$2 apps are the least likely to be affected.

Android certainly has potential, but so far I see a number of things that prevent it from being an iPhone killer.

First off, it's entirely Java based. This is just plain silly. Why not have the APIs with bindings for Java? Google has completely cut off other languages. Furthermore, while speed normally isn't an issue with Java these days, there is overhead. Could one really build the X-Plane[1] simulator in Java like they did for the iPod? It's pretty CPU and i/o intensive (calculating force vectors and loading textures, building 3-d models etc, at 30 frames a second). While the iPhone's SDK is mainly objective-C (which I think is pretty silly too), there are a number of languages that you can use to develop with including Python, using an objC bridge. Currently this is not the case with Android. It's only Java. Part of what made the iPhone and Touch so cool early on was that they were little unix systems and one could install python or ruby or any other language and hack together neat scripts and things. Of course Apple has kind of put an end to much of that though, with their official SDK. While Python and probably Ruby can be used, the guts of the iPhone are once again off-limits. It may as well not even be a unix system anymore for all the good it does developers and users. Very sad. Android is open and happens to be able to run on a Linux core, but with core APIs all in Java, there's currently no way to interface from a shell script or to build ad-hoc applications. JPython isn't the solution either since Android's jvm is completely incompatible with Sun's and JPython emits bytecode directly.

Secondly, I have yet to see that Android really does support multi-touch operations. Demos I've seen so far look fairly conventional, using buttons to zoom, and so forth. I've also seen a fair number of pop-up menus in use in Android apps, which just don't work as well as the way that most iPhone apps typically do it. Perhaps this is mainly do to the poor way in which the UIs have been constructed in the Android apps that I've seen video demos of.

Why not? No it's not just an embedded device. It's a full computer. At least if you want an android device to be an iPhone killer. Have you ever actually used an iPhone? One that's jailbroken with apps and scripts written in various languages? I would guess you've never seen or used a jailbreaked iPhone with python, ruby, C, ObjC apps, all running quite comfortably. It is technically an "embedded device" but very ably hosted an entire range of languages and runtimes, ably bound to the core compiled A

Just what is expected of Apple fans: Denial. Obviously the iPhone isn't a police state. For one, it isn't a state. That should make it clear that you're looking at an analogy. The programs are the people of that "state", and they are indeed censored and controlled by Apple.

Unfortunately the central authority model is on the rise everywhere: Even Mozilla has its one stop shop which is tightly integrated into Mozilla's products and where developers are at the mercy of the admins (without the DRM though).

It's the mainframe mentality expressed on a global level. And yes, it's unnerving, particularly for someone like me who was there thirty-odd years ago when the personal computer was born, and has long since been accustomed to doing whatever the hell I want with my systems.

Obviously the iPhone isn't a police state. For one, it isn't a state. That should make it clear that you're looking at an analogy. The programs are the people of that "state", and they are indeed censored and controlled by Apple.

Not only is it not a state, it's not policed that tightly. There are limits on competition, and it's severely closed down, but it doesn't clamp down on users the way a police state clamps down on its citizens. I would

When was a device built by Apple a democratic system? If I have a party do I have to invite everyone even if I do not like them?? Certainly not..

In short.. If you do not like the iPhone, then dont buy one. That is your right, and Apple is not holding a gun to your head. What they are trying to do, however, is to provide the experience that they want and not yours. If that means that they hurt some people's feelings along they way, then they seem fine with that... Personally, I am too...

Just to answer, when the Apple ][ was sold, the documentation included full schematics and a listing of the ROM. It also included a section on how to build an interface card that would work in one of the 8 slots. I don't think I have owned a machine that was more open than the Apple ][.

I respect your right to say what you said and I'm not even going to make a single statement against it.

Now that I have said that, what would you say if Microsoft did the same thing? I mean it.. Really.. What would you have really said? Please don't respond with something akin to it wouldn't have been okay with them doing it because of their monopolistic status as that, really, has been eradicated for the most part. They can't even include a media player in some markets. So... What would you REALLY say if I

Oh I don't know, the entire Mac range?
I can run any software I please on my MacBook Pro, even format and install Windows or Linux if I want. On an iPhone, I can only run Apple-approved software, unless the phone is jailbroken.

24 years after their iconic '1984' ad, Apple look like hypocrites with their complete about-face on the iPhone.

Because Microsoft uses its monopoly to destroy other options and force you into a position where their choice is the only choice. That's what the embrace and extend philosophy is all about.

In the iPhone's case, you're perfectly able to buy a different phone that does not have these restrictions. In fact, it's easier to buy another phone, because the iPhone is only available for one carrier, ostensibly. (Mine's jailbroken, and over on T-Mobile, but I knew what I was getting into when I got it.)

Should Apple be banning apps like this mail program or the podcasting app? No, I don't think so. Can they? Yes, at their peril. They have the opportunity to choose whether they want to discourage serious developers and users, and the punishment for their crime will quite appropriately be levied against their bottom line and marketshare, if they continue on this road.

I agree. As far as stagnation and lack of innovation it is interesting that we could claim that with the one phone that has single handedly revived innovation in the handset market (the US market anyway.) I want to see Android come online and give us the innovation AND the openness.

One question to remain though is if Android will attract as many developers. Apple's free tools for iPhone development are well polished compared to most others I've seen. Will Google put the time and energy into pushing out t

Apple is a private corporation and they can run their service any way they wish as long as they are not in violation of the law. So far as I'm aware, they aren't, so I don't think "rights" come into play here. The devices in question are sold under certain terms, and if you don't like them you're free not to give Apple your money. The cellphone market is competitive as hell, and there are plenty of alternatives (and while the iPhone may be the slickest thing out there right now, the competition will catch u

You know, while I resent and dislike this scenario for all the same reasons most people here do, I have to think about this from the other side of it. My CEO loves his MacBook pro. He loves it so much, last year, he got Macs for the whole family and bought every Apple device to support it -- airports and the like -- and went full-bore Apple at home and didn't look back. It was total commitment. It was part experiment and part disgust and frustration with the misery that Windows brings.

Apple works to keep confusion out of the Apple world. They do this by controlling the environment carefully. It is imperfect in areas; faults and holes are found and closed. And it is speculative to say that Apple excludes things for anti-competitive reasons, but it is unquestionable that they do work to control the environment. But for many people, the results of this provides exactly the experience people are seeking out of Apple.

And I think the fact that Apple's philosophy exists in the form it does is useful if for no reason than to observe the practices and the results they yield.

Apple isn't in 100% control though. Apple HAS to allow Microsoft to behave like assholes in their world. By that, I am specifically talking about the difficulty of setting up Entourage to connect to a Microsoft Exchange server using SSL without getting the invalid certificate error. It's a Microsoft app and a Microsoft server. You'd think they would be able to get it right but for whatever reason, Microsoft hasn't fixed it. If Apple had their way, they would exclude Microsoft entirely from their environment... it just wouldn't be a wise business decision. Microsoft applies other limitations and broken behaviors in its products for Apple as well. This is not something that Apple easily tolerates... but they will from Microsoft and probably from Adobe as well.

Other opinions aside, I find it interesting to observe the various dynamics surrounding Apple's philosophies applied.

While I agree with you, the 9th Amendment [wikipedia.org] states that just because some rights are enumerated therein doesn't mean people don't have other rights that aren't enumerated. I'm definitely not saying that people have the "right" to use a cell phone in any manner they wish, just that the enumeration of certain rights wasn't meant to "deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It's Apple's product and if they are able to, there is nothing wrong with controlling what apps there are in the app store.

It's Apple's product and if they are able to, there is nothing wrong with controlling what apps there are in the app store.

They exert excessive and unnecessary control over the thing. There is something wrong with it, I don't care if its their phone, i don't care if its their app store. They absolutely should not be allowed to exclude applications from the thing simply because it might threaten their business model, EVEN IF they have used to SDK license to exclude those things. It's ridiculous and i hope they get sued.

Not sure why this got modded up so, as the poster doesn't understand what DRM is. Don't take the term "Digital 'Rights' (or Restictions as we like to say) Management" absolutely literally, just as "Compact Disc" doesn't refer to squished donuts.

The cited examples are not DRM. These are tools a person can use to control access to their own stuff, their own property. It's exactly the same as locking your front door and is perfectly legitimate, no questions about it. Not DRM.

Look at the term. Passwords are a form of DRM. CHMOD is a form of DRM.

No, they are not. DRM is when you give the key and the content to someone, and expect them to only be able to view that content under certain circumstances.

If I password-protect something, then I have two choices: (a) give you the password, (b) don't give you the password. If (a), you can't access the content at all. If (b), you can do anything with the content you want. Period. DRM is the foolish attempt to do both.

If a chmod a file, I have two choices: (a) give you read access, (b) don't give you read access. If (a), you can do anything with that content you want. You can read it, you can copy it, you can run it on another machine, whatever. If (b), you can't do anything with the content. You can't read it, you can't copy it, you can't run it on another machine. Again, DRM is the idea that you can have your cake and eat it too.

I am aware that this next statement might seem like trolling but I've been wanting to ask/say it for a while now.

Go ask all those people who claim that information wants to be free what their social security number is if they have one and, if they don't, then ask for their local equivalent.

This is either trolling or completely misunderstanding the issue. I will be generous and assume the latter.

This falls perfectly in line with the other two categories above. I have two choices with my SSN: (a) I can tell you what it is, (b) I can keep it secret from you. If (a), you have full access to my SSN and can copy it, tell others about it, post it on the interwebs, etc. If (b), then you can't do anything with it, you can't copy it, you can't use it to screw over my credit rating, etc. DRM is the idea that you can, given enough technology, tell someone what your SSN is and, at the same time, prevent them from doing anything bad with it. I hope it is obvious to you why this is impossible.

You might think that DRM would be a good thing in some cases if it were technologically feasible, such as being able to give people your SSN and ensuring that they can't do anything bad with it. But DRM is not anything like passwords or chmod or "normal" access restrictions that do not give people access to the content and then expect to control it.

Isn't duplicating functionality the basis for competition? The 45 different flashlight applications don't exactly support the claim that duplicate functionality is why these applications were rejected.

Seems to me like they're trying to reserve the right to develop their own alternative to any application on the store and pull the third party version. Don't you just love closed platforms?

Even if I don't support it in any case, it is about duplication of *apple's* software functionality. So it doesn't matter if there are 45 versions of flashlight apps, apple doesn't have one so they don't care. When you start to design your music player, mail and itunes app, then you get into the problems.

But by using a different distribution method (jailbroken device + cydia or installer.app) you could duplicate the functionality of apple's own apps.

Part of the problem is that Apple hasn't built their existing applications to be removable, so even if they allowed the these competing apps they'd still be competing against entrenched applications (like IE on Windows).

Now, I don't think it's quite as bad as IE on Windows, but only because at this point it's sort of in a middle-ground between a real handheld computer and an embedded system. But still, Apple should just treat it like a real handheld system, allow competing applications, open all the APIs and allow their applications to be removed.

"Fuck it," said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, "we're evil. [today.com] But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it's pretty and it's cool and it works. It's not like you'll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!"

Personally, I'm eagerly awaiting the Linux-based phone where you do everything from a bash prompt. The Command Line! The Quintessential One-Dimensional Desktop!! [today.com] What Linux devotee could settle for less?

The mobile device I use the most is my Nokia 770 with a bluetooth keyboard. The ARM port of Linux doesn't seem to have a framebuffer console, so I run a full-screen xterm and run vim in that. Great for writing articles in the park or pretentious coffee shops (although an OpenBSD port and a better beret would make the latter better).

It's a waste of investment. It's just that simple. The moment Apple wants to do something you're doing, they just get rid of you. No serious business should ever invest money into the iPhone because they are completely at the mercy of Apple here, in a way that makes Microsoft look like they're selling an open source platform.

That makes no sense. Most iPhones actually do what they're supposed to do. They're not supposed to be an open platform. If that's what you want, get something else!

The moment Apple wants to do something you're doing, they just get rid of you.

You seriously think that? Corporations are not evil for evil's sake, they actually want something specific: more money. How on earth could Apple spontaneously cutting off users at all help their sales? Sure, there have b

I think it was fairly clear that the grandparent was talking about developing software for the iPhone, not just using one.
And I agree completely with his points. Of course, any company can develop a free program that duplicates yours, but being able to ban your software from the only place you can sell it is much worse.
Even as an user, I find their attitude unacceptable, and will not buy their stuff.

That makes no sense. Most iPhones actually do what they're supposed to do. They're not supposed to be an open platform. If that's what you want, get something else!

the grandaprent obviously means that developing on the Iphone is a waste of investment. Most people do that kind of investment with a plan for a small reasonable return and a reasonable hope for great riches if their application happens to hit a sweet spot. With the iphone the situation is that, if you do hit that sweet spot, Apple can, and will just eliminate your application whilst introducing their own one. You end up doing free (or even profitable) R&D for Apple.

Others have compared this with Windows, but actually it's very similar. Microsoft has shown a willingness to kill any partner which gets too big for it's boots by competing against them. E.g. look at Borland which was wiped out by microsoft's compiler suite; look at Netscape; look even at Oracle: they were only saved because they had other platforms. Even so Oracle is in a much worse position because of MSSql than it would be otherwise.

Apple, I don't know how to tell you this, but Mail.app sucks. Seriously. I put up with it on my Mac because it's not my primary computer and I don't use it enough to install Thunderbird. If I actually needed a good mail reader on OS X, though, Mail.app would be gone in a heartbeat.

So now I know that if I were to get an iPhone, I'd be stuck with a crappy mail reader. The silver lining is that now people know that in advance.

Out of interest, what don't you like about Mail.app? I've used it as my primary (actually, only) mail client for a few years, coming from Thunderbird (before that, from Mozilla Mail and News, before that Outlook Express, and before that MS Mail and News), and haven't had any issues with it.

Because it's not a monopoly. You can abuse a minority market share as much as you want. The iPhone is, currently, the nicest phone I've played with, but it's still a tiny player. It's not even the best selling touchscreen phone. Giving up certain freedoms in exchange for a nicer user interface is a choice that individuals are free to make.

â¦ Your application duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application Mail without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality, which will lead to user confusion. â¦

So the 30 different versions of Voice Notes is acceptable, since it doesn't compete with Apple, but having two versions of mail applications are unacceptable?

What bothers me more than this is that the AppStore restricts any frameworks that one _could_ use to write good applications, like movie players (CoreSurface) and programs that interact with iTunes. If you look at older versions of the firmware, these were all public frameworks until the AppStore rolled out.

What bothers me more than this is that the AppStore restricts any frameworks that one _could_ use to write good applications, like movie players (CoreSurface) and programs that interact with iTunes. If you look at older versions of the firmware, these were all public frameworks until the AppStore rolled out.

Well, technically before there was an App Store and an official SDK all the frameworks used on the iPhone were private.

No. This is pure profit motive, that's all.Apple is hyper-monopolistic and hyper-aggressive when it comes to their OS.No one has built an effective Mail client for Mac OS X. No one has built a good replacement for ANY of the Mac OS X's system tools, BECAUSE Apple closes their system effectively.On one hand they cry out loud no one builds apps for their OS, but OTOH they scuttle anything which remotely threatens them.Unlike Microsoft.True Microsoft is the T-Rex, but they don't compete in markets like system

If Apple allowed a competing mail app, this would encourage more people to buy the iPhone (more money for Apple), and I'm sure they get a cut of sales through the App Store (even more money for Apple).

No one has built an effective Mail client for Mac OS X.

Thunderbird isn't effective?

No one has built a good replacement for ANY of the Mac OS X's system tools, BECAUSE Apple closes their system effectively.

Or maybe because there's really not a market for someone to duplicate the functionality of, say, Disk Utility. And there's really not a lot you can do on top of Disk Utility.

True Microsoft is the T-Rex, but they don't compete in markets like system tools, mail clients, etc.

WTF? Can it be you don't know about Outlook?

Sure, they don't ban these other markets, but it's not as though they don't attempt to compete.

"duplicating the functionality"?! How can anyone put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) and write such utter nonsense? All other platforms have competing products that try to achieve the same or similar functionality in a better or different way, so does Apple really think their shit is going to fly? Do they think their users are idiots?

People here know that Apple is commercial enterprise, right? Google has open source apps because apps are not their core business, advertising is. Apple sells software to drive hardware sales. The have a need to ensure that their application site remains unique and that they control the entire experience because that is what differentiates them. By offering up a competitor to iTunes or even to Mail.app (which offers unique integration into THEIR ecosystem), Apple would undermine their own ability to make a

Take it one step higher. Burger King and McD's both have a business license in your city to sell the same product right? What if NYC decided to facilitate better controls over the meat industry to prevent mad-cow disease? In the process they denied Burger King's business licenses because it provides the same functionality, but only increases the amount of work on their part. Neither of our analogies are any good, BTW.

By offering up a competitor to iTunes or even to Mail.app (which offers unique integration into THEIR ecosystem), Apple would undermine their own ability to make a profit.

On hardware?

I haven't bought an iPhone, largely because of the insane amount of lock-in on the thing. I might be more likely to buy it if I knew there would be a competitor to Mail.app. So Apple has lost an iPhone sale due to this.

What, exactly, would they lose if I'd bought an iPhone and used this other app, instead of the free built-in Mail.app?

it's stupidity. You can already setup your mail through Mail.app. It IS confusing to a lot of customers. I think now is the shock time when we find out that there are people who aren't computer literate who are vast majority who use these things.

My brother-in-law insists that the $600 price disparity I have documented on two separate occasions (a year apart) between Dell laptop prices and Apple laptop prices for essentially equivalent hardware is more than made up for by the [supposed] higher quality of Apple's hardware. I guess he never met a friend of mine who spent his days repairing MacBooks at a shop downtown...

The $600 difference is, of course, pure profit for Apple. I don't think their hardware is particularly more reliable than Dell's - j

You know, this is one area Microsoft could really do some damage to Apple in their "I'm a PC" movement. And, (wait for it...) they'd be right to do it!

The iPhone is one of the most draconian platforms ever produced for a consumer market, gradually stripping away more and more of the end-users rights and abilities until they all become a singular monolithic platform where no one user has capabilities other users do not. This is probably the furthest thing away from what Steve Woziak envisioned when he developed the first personal computer.

Strange how the company he originally co-founded on the idea of bringing personal computing to the masses is now pushing the masses toward a mainframe/dumb terminal relationship with their computers.

When you look at the direction the iPhone has taken, it scares me to think what future technologies like cloud computing could end up as, if they developed from this same context.

I'm not suggesting that Microsoft is now the "good guy" in all this, but when their methods of locking everything down seem relatively minor when compared to the Apple Inc. way of doing things, something has definitely gone in the land of Jobs.

No one is going to use a third party mail app, or music app, or other app that competes with your offerings, unless it is substantially better. Compete on your merits.

I'm a big Mac fan; switched to a MacBook and there's no going back. I love OS X, the hardware, the general approach and leadership of Jobs.

But this app store stuff is ridiculous. It's reminiscent of MS in the early days. "We encourage your development on our platform, until we get into the space." Just like MS started picking off app areas one by one, killing third party vendors supporting their platform (Spreadsheet, Word Processors, even TCP/IP stacks), Apple is going to cannibalize themselves if they keep this approach up. Even as a Mac Fanboi, I'm thinking this is outrageous and has to stop.

I'm also a developer, and was seriously considering dedicating myself to iPhone apps, but am putting that on hold until I see some change in policies. (Or at least more visibility as to the policy.)

It's Microsoft's platform, Microsoft's SDK, and Microsoft's store. Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business? Why should they allow useless products? You don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling maps to Circuit City. You don't get mad at Circuit City for not selling empty cardboard boxes for $999. Why should Microsoft's store be any different?

I can't think of any reason other than Microsoft is a monopoly, and users have next to no choice but to use Windows for many purposes. However, if you're talking about Windows Mobile, or some other MS platform that isn't a monopoly, then it really doesn't sound as silly as you might think it does.

Although I very much disagree with the grandparent, your "analogy" also doesn't work because, at least in the PC OS market, Microsoft are, all together now, a monopoly. Apple are not one in the smart phone arena. If you do not like Apple's device, services, distribution model, etc. you can go buy one of dozens of devices form a dozen manufacturers, claiming they do more than the iPhone. So, although massively stupid move on Apple's part, it's fair game.

Because it's pissing people off in a way that's bad PR, firstly to the developers and secondly to the users. There's a reason why so many of the latter have jail-broken their iPhones - Trusted Computing sucks to be bent over for.

I agree with you that this is a very stupid thing for Apple to do. It will needlessly alienate a lot of people - not enough to hurt sales, but, again, needlessly many. However, I am very much against jail-breaking, especially as a result of Apple doing something wrong. It simply doesn't send Apple a message that whatever they've done is not going to be tolerated by the market. Once they've sold you the device, they couldn't care less how much you disagree with them. And they'll do the same thing again.

The depressing thing is that they did exactly the same thing on the desktop in the '80s, and it cost them a market that they came close to completely controlling. Many of us assumed that Steve Jobs had learned this lesson at NeXT, but apparently not.

Honestly, how many people would buy an apple computer if the osx only allows you to run apple's mail.app (no thunderbird/entourage), only safari (no firefox), only iwork, only finder etc? I guess probably nobody would, except a few brain dead people.

So we can conclude that apple's computers and iphones are substantially different. The former lets you use competitor's software (eg firefox instead of safari) which the latter won't.

Another conclusion is that apple can leverage their obsessive control on iphone

It's Apple's platform, Apple's SDK, and Apple's store. Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business? Why should they allow useless products? You don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling maps to Circuit City. You don't get mad at Circuit City for not selling empty cardboard boxes for $999. Why should Apple's store be any different?

I am an Apple fan to the highest degree, but this has to be the stupidest analogy I've ever heard. It's one thing for Apple to ban apps that violate privacy, harm the network, or even that go against AT&T's TOS (like the tethering app). But to ban an app that competes with Apple's free included apps? If Best Buy won't sell your software, you can always try getting Circuit City to sell it or if that doesn't work, sell it from your own site and pay for advertising. If Apple won't sell your app on the App Store, you have no alternative. I have a regular old Samsung flip phone on the Sprint network. The included web browser sucks. I went over to Operamini.com. downloaded it, and now I have a great browser. Apple would never allow a competing browser,

It's Apple's platform, Apple's SDK, and Apple's store. Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business?

How does a product that they would sell in their own app store compete with their business, pray tell? They are the gatekeeper. Any application could, potentially, help them sell more iPhones if it's good enough, and at the very least, they make money from the sale of the app. Even free apps encourage people to go to the app store, thus increasing the odds they'll buy something.

Why should they allow useless products?

Like 100 flashlight applications? Like the "I am Rich" application? Like more failing social networks then you can shake a stick at? I'm failing to understand how apple has prevented useless products from arriving at the app store.

You don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling maps to Circuit City. You don't get mad at Circuit City for not selling empty cardboard boxes for $999. Why should Apple's store be any different?

Because, if I choose to buy a piece of electronics, Best Buy is not my only option. I can choose to go somewhere else. If Apple restricts an app for no viable reason, then I have no recourse. If I own an iPhone, I am absolutely restricted by the whims of Apple, and that is absolutely ridiculous. They call the iPhone a platform, then they need to treat it as a platform.
Since you sound like a Mac person, let me ask you this: What if Apple came out with their own massively powerful graphics editor, and then they told Adobe to take a hike because Photoshop was competing with their app on OS X. No one would stand for that. Yet everyone seems to accept it on the iPhone. It's unacceptable.
[For the purposes of disclosure - I do own an iPhone and I do own a MacBook running OS X, so I'm definitely not Anti-Apple. This whole App Store thing, though, is incredibly dangerous precedent and disturbs me greatly.]

Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business?

What are they selling Mail.app for these days? Oh, wait - it's included for free. So, let's rephrase your question so that it makes sense: why should they allow any product on the shelf that enhances part of the OS? Answer: because then it makes their OS more attractive to users. This is generally regarded as a good thing. At least they thought so when they offered Firefox for OS X for download [apple.com] from their own site, even though Firefox "competes" with their own Safari.

You don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling maps to Circuit City. You don't get mad at Circuit City for not selling empty cardboard boxes for $999. Why should Apple's store be any different?

Last I checked, Best Buy and Circuit City haven't gone out of their way to prevent me from installing software I've bought elsewhere.

The difference, perhaps, is that FireFox is free. It would give people a negative impression of the platform if they paid money for something that didn't give any useful features not present in the original software, while no one would be too upset if they downloaded FireFox and decided that they liked Safari more.

Removing software from the App Store because they don't like it isn't the evil thing here. The evil thing is that the App Store is the only way other than jail-breaking or paying $99 to be a d

Very true, but you also (theoretically) bought one knowing it's capabilities. Or I should hope so, at least. When they first went on sale (when I got one), there were exactly sixteen apps included, and one of them was Settings. There was no App Store, nor was there a promise of one. Of course nobody expected for a second that Apple would let something with so much potential go to waste, but up until the day it was announced you couldn't reasonably claim that you were "owed" one. You bought one (or didn

One might have thought you were trying to make a reasonable point, right up until your Apple fanboism shone through:

Why should they allow useless products?

Because clearly, once Apple has created a product it's PERFECTION! Nobody should even bother to do anything encroaching on so much as the realm surrounding the vision of the idea that Apple coded. By golly, if we were to have more than one email client on a computer the whole technology thing would never have picked up steam!

Or, perhaps competition is good? Perhaps there actually ARE multiple products that do essentially the same thing and the world hasn't coming crashing down on our heads? Perhaps we have these concepts of markets and supply and demand that are capable of weeding out useless products without bothering our Beneficent Apple Overlords with having to take time out of their day? I wonder why nobody's ever tried such a thing? Customers deciding whether they like a product or not? Whoddathunkit?

But I'll give you better than you deserve and actually look past the Jobs worship to reply.

It's Apple's platform, Apple's SDK, and Apple's store. Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business?

For starters, competition is good for consumers and stifling it is wrong--sometimes legally, sometimes "just" morally. The idea that we should permit it to chase every last dollar is what's wrong with this country. Corporations exist and are given all sorts of benefits by our government. Our government is supposed to exist to do the things which are best for its populace as a whole. Holding up the idea that two products competing on their merits and one being crushed by the power of the company who produced the other as somehow equally beneficial to us is ridiculous. Would we be having this discussion if it were Microsoft or IBM of a few decades ago that was crushing its competition beneath its heel?

Beyond that, Apple isn't creating these things to be generous to you, even within the context of the iPhone. They're using your work to make money. A cursory glance at their developer program page [apple.com] shows they take a 30% cut off the top. But more to the point, they're using you to populate their application library so more people will shell out hundreds of dollars to get that shiny new iPhone.

There's nothing wrong with this, but all previous objections aside (and let's face it, storing a few Kb on their servers for apps that never sell isn't going to hurt Apple) the least they could do when you actually DO agree to let them use you that way is not spit in your face, wave their arms and scream "oh no no no! *WE* coded something like that already, you can't!" If it's so useless, let it languish in obscurity. Don't ruin somebody's hard work. If it's not useless, if it's something people actually would want and they're squashing it... well, maybe that Apple glow dims because that's no better than anything Microsoft ever did.

You don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling maps to Circuit City.

The better example, of course, would be "you don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling Circuit City's products." My response is simple: Best Buy doesn't have a program whereby they let you store your products on their shelves, integrate with their system and take a cut of your profits either. If they did, I would be equally pissed at them if they decided that nobody could produce anything that they already stocked. It's all a crappy example, though, since physical goods and digital ones vary in so many important ways. This IS Slashdot, I'd expect you to be aware of that. It comes up in every damn story about copyright infringement, which is like every other story as it is.

You don't get mad at Circuit City for not selling empty cardboard boxes for $999

Code which contains language interpreters or loads additional libraries not present in the original install are expressly prohibited by the iPhone SDK T&Cs. This is one of half a dozen clauses that made me not agree to it.